Author: Howard Exner
Date: 18:53:02 02/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2000 at 21:02:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 16, 2000 at 17:55:20, Howard Exner wrote: > >>On February 16, 2000 at 17:45:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On February 16, 2000 at 17:25:09, Amir Ban wrote: >>> >>>>On February 16, 2000 at 16:43:12, Amir Ban wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 16, 2000 at 16:06:03, Amir Ban wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>This game is not over. There are major communication problems at the >>>>>>KasparovChess offices. The game has been stopped, and there are discussions >>>>>>going on on what to do next. >>>>>> >>>>>>Needless to say, this is not making me happy. Apologies to all viewers. >>>>>> >>>>>>Amir >>>>> >>>>>It has been agreed with GM Adams to call game one a DRAW. >>>>> >>>>>The second game will start in about 20 minutes. Communication looks good at this >>>>>moment. Let's hope we can play the second game to finish :( >>>>> >>>>>Amir >>>> >>>>GM Adams has now changed his mind and wants the entire 2-game match to be >>>>declared his win by forfeit. >>>> >>>>Amir >>> >>> >>>was there any pre-tournament discussion about communication disasters like >>>this? IE it would be prudent to _always_ have a plan, as anything can happen >>>when the internet passes thru so many points between A and B... >> >>Found this on the Kasparov site. Does not address particulars but the spirit of >>mutual cooperation and professionalism is evident. >> >>MATCH ARBITERS >> >>In order to ensure that this groundbreaking event is a successful one, the role >>of the match arbiter cannot be understated. According to KasparovChess Grand >>Prix Event Coordinator Aviv Bushinsky, ?the role must be clearly defined so that >>the matches are conducted in a completely fair and supervised fashion.? >> >>For this purpose each player has been assigned an arbiter whose neutrality, >>impartiality and sense of fair play is beyond question. The arbiter must >>coordinate proceedings with the players and arrive at least 15 minutes before >>the commencement of the game. If both arbiters are not present the games will >>not begin. Bushinsky stresses the importance of a professional atmosphere being >>maintained both for the players and for the spectators. >> >>The arbiter must make certain the player is not be subjected to any external >>interference and to this effect he must neither be disturbed nor assisted during >>the game. The player must not discuss the game with anyone throughout the match >>and he must not use any external material such as chess books or chess software. >> >>In addition the arbiter will be required to help record this historic event by >>writing a match report summary including the players? post game comments. >> > >This shows an _incredible_ level of "network incompetence". The _first_ >question that needed answering was "what do we do if we have a serious network >problem on either (or both) ends while a game is in progress?" When we were >discussing the ICC tournament, this was the _first_ issue discussed. Because >the internet is not reliable. Small countries like Israel have serious >drawbacks as they don't have the hundreds of internet connect pathways we have >in North America (for example). Someone _must_ figure out what to do in case >such a problem occurs... and they _must_ figure this out _before_ the event, not >with a bunch of wild hair-pulling after the problem occurs in a critical game. What's ironic is that the game of chess itself is an exercise in examining "What if ... then ..." scenarios. That was always a key argument for teaching chess in schools ... the critical thinking benefits. Flexible minded thought gets so easily tossed out the door. > >This was ridiculous. The people making the decision ought to be raked over >the coals for such a ridiculous happening. And the person that made the >decision to forfeit Junior ought to be taken out back and beaten with a mop >handle. :) Something is not right here. There's something rotten in the state of KC online. > >And we wonder if there will be more computer-allowed events? right... > > > > > > >>> >>>I think the draw in game 1 was overkill, as I think you could have won. His >>>wanting to call the entire match a win is _really_ over the edge and ought to >>>be turned down. Unless there was something agreed to prior to the match. He >>>has already had enough "charity" IMHO. He should have zero right now after >>>1 game, not .5. It seems ridiculous to give him 2.0
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.